Thanks to everyone who responded. A lot of good feedback has been given and we have covered a lot of ground. I have just a little bit to share for now.
I have read over the responses and found that there are two definitions of homosexual being used. It is very difficult to come to any understanding when we are using the same word defining it in different ways. Some of you believe homosexuality is limited to the physical act of mating with the same sex, while others, including myself, believe it is something pertaining to the mind. I have three reasons for coming to this conclusion:
1. I believe there are homosexuals who refrain from having intercourse with both male and female counterparts. This could be caused by a number of things such as religious beliefs, self-hatred, embarassment, or rejection of the gay social climate. Now, an asexual human is one who has no desire for either sex, no preference, no attraction whatsoever. Now this type of person I am describing might sound asexual in the physical sense, but, he or she
does have desires for the same sex, and for certain reasons, they choose not to act upon them. Think about it, if a man anticipates having sex with another man, is it not at this point he becomes homosexual?
2. As
L Mac-a-docious pointed out earlier, a man being raped in jail, although involved with the physical act of homosexuality, can not possibly be considered a homosexual if he has no desires toward this conduct. It's like saying if I rape a girl, she must like me because we fucked.
3. This may be more complicated. But what if a heterosexual, having had many sexual expeirences with women, decides to switch hit for a change. If afterwards, he feels unsatisfied, is full of regret, and is actually disgusted at what he did, and then realizes now more than ever his attraction to women is real, then can we call him homosexual? If your answer is yes, then you would believe so because of his single physical encounter with another man. But what about the numerous encounters with women before and after? You would have a hard time proving that homosexuality is limited to physical intercourse if you believe a single encounter is sufficient, and that several others (backed by desire and lust for women) are not.
It's really not that hard to understand that homosexuality has everything to do with your though processes first, and sexual encounters second. If a person has sex with only females, but in his mind he is strongly attracted to men, so much so that he imagines himself having sex with other men, and on occasion, watches movies with men having intercourse, could you argue that this person is not homosexual?
So with this, unless someone wishes to refute my thoughts on homosexuality being part of the mind, can we all agree that homosexuality is not limited to physical intercourse?
2-0-Sixx said:
...Most people who oppose gays fail to realize that "homosexual behavior" can be observed in many other species as well. Over 130 species of birds engage in homesexual behavior, bison, gazelles, antelope, deer, dogs, chimpanzees, cheetahs, lizards and many others.
Dolphins are probably the best example since they will in fact form homosexual pair bonds, which often last for life.
We're animals. And being animals, we should quit trying to pretend that we're not.
This is a good point, but there is something that does not sit well with me. The way you're describing homosexuality is the physical act of mating with the same sex. But I believe it to be something different, something in the mind. It is only after people discover they are gay, do they act on their desires.
Unless we can prove that these occurances happened by choice, rather then chance, then I believe we would have to assume that these actions are performed for stimulative purposes only, especially with respect to the mental capacity of a wild animal.
You point out animals mating with their own sex so as to compare the nature of homosexuality as it exists amongst humans as being the same with animals. My question to you, 2-0-Sixx, and to those that concurred with his belief on homosexuality being the same with animals (non-human) and humans, is this
: How can we look at animals mating with their own sex and consider it homosexuality, if their mental capacity is so inferior that a dog will attempt to have sex with a pillow laying on the ground? A dog will do this with your female pup, possibly your male dog, your leg, your couch cusion, and so on. Can you argue that animal (non-human) same sex mating, is equivilant to human homosexuality, in light of what I have just shown you?
nefar559 said:
i dont think majority of guys think of 2 males going at it.
Completely arguable. How else would people develope an understanding of how "disgusting" homosexuality is? We have all, at one point, drawn homosexual images in our head, and it is during this process that we become disgusted, and choose to reject it. I do not believe that people just think
man and man and become repulsed. One would have to imagine homosexuality to bring about
defensive behaviors and emotions. For me, seeing two guys flaming is not enough for me to become repulsed. However, the thought of two men having anal intercourse with one another is downright nasty!
I believe the majority do have homosexual thoughts. Not tendancies, not desires, but just thoughts. They are not random, they are triggered. I do not walk the halls of my school thinking of two gays having intercourse, but when I see two homosexuals together, I am reminded why I disapprove of their life style. And it is not their wardrobe.
My theory is that everytime someone is reminded of homosexuality, something visual is painted in the mind be it subliminal, or subconciously. Otherwise, on each occasion, we would simply think:
oh yes, I remember, I do not like homosexuality.
Also, we should be discussing what "naturality" is, because, if we are to converse on whether homosexuality is natural or not, we must understand this term. For instance, are diseases natural? I will post my thoughts later, but wanted to share what I have written down so far.
